Ms Justice Mary Ellen Ring:

That is a straightforward question. I will start with the first part of the Deputy's question. We have said that Part 4 of the Act, which is the area dealing with investigations, complaints and process, needs to be examined. While we have highlighted certain things, we would say that this area needs to be considered. How we do use everyone's time efficiently? How do we bring the gardaí into the process of managing their own force but still provide oversight? This is why we say Part 4 of the Act needs to be considered.

Perhaps the biggest problem into which we have made inroads is the provision of information. We open a complaint. Perhaps there has already been another type of investigation and we need to see the information about that matter. We look for documentation where relevant - exhibits or matters of that nature. We have put in place a procedure which has certainly reduced the time but we are aware that in major matters, a longer period is being taken. We know there might be unnecessary perusal of documentation before it ever comes to us. We should see it. It should not be read three times before we get to see it. Again, we have no penalty. We ask for the documentation, evidence and any relevant information and we get it when we get it. While we have a process, it is not a statutory process and there is no penalty for not following that process. We are working with the co-operation of the gardaí, which is good, but in some instances it takes longer. This is why on page 19 of our submission, we look for a solution to that problem, namely, a straightforward statutory provision that can be put in anywhere. It would replicate the model of our sister organisation in Northern Ireland which talks about the chief constable and the board. We would say that the Garda Commissioner shall supply the ombudsman with such information and documents as the ombudsman may require for the purposes of, or in connection with, the exercise of any of its functions. It is not a complicated provision. In terms of failure to comply with that, it means that the ombudsman in Northern Ireland can seek legal redress. They can seek an order directing the chief constable - it would be the Garda Commissioner in our jurisdiction - to provide the relevant documentation. In this jurisdiction, we cannot make such an application.

Having been present when the Chief Constable in Northern Ireland was in the company of Dr. Michael Maguire, who is the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, I heard the former say that he accepts that the ombudsman exists, they have a role and if they look for documentation, there is a purpose and it is given to them. We would like to see the same sentiment and process here. We will then feel that where there has been a failure to respond which hampers the commencement of an investigation, for example, where we cannot start until we get the relevant documentation or cannot interview people because we do not know who to interview because that information is within the purview of the Commissioner, such a failure to respond will result in an application to the courts. At least, it would give us teeth. In respect of getting information - and getting it in a timely fashion - we credit the process that has been put in place and we have certainly improved the ability with the co-operation of the Garda to get information. The key element is relates to the co-operation of the Garda. Where we do not have co-operation or it is slow in coming, we have no teeth in the context of moving that along.

In respect of protected disclosures, that is clearly an issue. As with any complaint, getting all the relevant information can take time, particularly if there have been prior interactions between a discloser and the police. In the operation of the Act, and this issue applies to any organisation covered by it, there are teething problems. There are teething problems because of learning what it applies to. One of the issues that has arisen concerns where people approach us with what are HR problems. When they are teased out, they are not matters that come within the tight definition of a protected disclosure. At the moment, there are four investigations and they clearly come within the definition. It may be the case that over time, people will know when they should come to us and will be aware of the complaints that are relevant under the Act.

In the context of the sanctions mentioned by the Deputy, discipline and sanctions are matters for the Garda Commissioner. We may make a recommendation and she may take it on board or ignore it. In respect of files sent to the DPP, it is for the DPP to decide whether to prosecute. We have no prosecutorial role. We investigate and provide a file and it is up to the DPP to decide whether or not to take it forward for full prosecution. It is important to see where our role stops and those of the Garda Commissioner and the DPP begin. We sometimes get very limited information as to why somebody has been disciplined or why a prosecution has not been directed. Again, those decisions are outside our control. It is something we are not anxious to get involved in unless things are totally changed and we are given discipline. One would then be looking at quite a different organisation in terms of resources and personnel.